5 ms·

HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design

43 points by SubiculumCode 4mo ago

sega_sai 4mo ago
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it."
- noosphr 4mo ago
  It wasn't the party that made the replication crisis. Right now universities have all the trappings of science with none of the substance. Do I particularly care than they are going to be bent to the ends of those in power? Kind of. The same way I'm a bit upset if someone pisses in the holy water at a church.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4mo ago
    Universities have produced medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough. Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
    - noosphr 4mo ago
      Clinical trails have produced medical breakthroughs, peer review gave us leeches.
      - clipsy 4mo ago
        Clinical trials don’t happen until there’s a treatment to try.
        noosphr 4mo ago
        Like leeches.
      - monkpit 4mo ago
        False dichotomy
      - DiogenesKynikos 4mo ago
        How do you think medical treatments make it to the stage of doing clinical trials? The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review. You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.
  - nxobject 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - eigenspace 4mo ago
    It also wasnt The Party who identified the replication crisis, and started the work of fixing it. Science is a self correcting mechanism, monarchism is not.
    - noosphr 4mo ago
      The crisis has been ongoing since the 80s and isn't slowing down. If the cure for it is to wait till the researchers die so new better ones take their place you just reinvented feudalism with tenure.
      - SubiculumCode 4mo ago
        Maybe because the crisis isn't a crisis. It's a 1) examining tough things with a lot of noise and low funding prevents adequate sampling
  - applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
    You should care at least as much as if someone pisses in the cup you're drinking from, because regardless of the merit of the 'science' being produced in certain fields, the findings of bad studies are nonetheless breathlessly reported as objectively true Science, becoming "facts" that influence who your fellow less-discerning citizens vote for and influence how those voted in approach policy decisions. The state of scientific research is bad enough, but it can become much worse when actively applied to propagandistic ends (moreso than it already is).
    - noosphr 4mo ago
      Scientists have been pissing in all our cups for longer than I've been alive. That you're arguing what concentration of urea is acceptable is part of the problem. There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down. Universities are far past that point.
      - kristjansson 4mo ago
        yes yes the solution to some debatably valid social science research is to burn the entire epistemological method and practice to the ground. We'll surely find something better to replace it in its absence.
      - applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
        "Burn it down" is not on the menu. Your options are "bad science, used to mildly propagandistic ends, mostly in the form of lobbying public policy via bought-and-paid-for studies" or "bad science, used to extremely propagandistic ends directly by the state". Even if the option you would prefer is "good science" or "no bad science", you live in the real world and are currently being presented with a society making the choice between the actual options on the table rather than fantasy options.
        DiogenesKynikos 4mo ago
        What we have right now is, "Mostly good science, which produces a constant stream of major advances, but which is subject to the same pressures and failure modes as any human endeavor, such as bias and financial interests with ulterior motives." If you want to improve that system, relying on people like RFK Jr. (a crackpot who rejects basically all of modern medical science, right down to the germ theory of disease) and Trump (the most corrupt president in US history) is crazy.
  - platinumrad 4mo ago
    The Party certainly isn't going to solve the replication crisis. It's just going to pressure researchers to publish a different set of unreplicable results.
maxfraud9000 4mo ago
This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?
- t0mpr1c3 4mo ago
  Fraud Guarantee
- SubiculumCode 4mo ago
  Fox News much? They propagandize you to distrust the whole scientific endeavor using a few cases in order to strip from you any opinions that matter save their own, the propagandizer. This is propaganda 101. Remove those that truly help identify truth so that the truth is what they want it to be.
  - maxfraud9000 4mo ago
    Ah yes another party member spreading "American Lysenkoism" by acting like it doesn't exist. Thanks for proving my point! Science is big business now and you must be on salary. Unlike actual Lysenkoism the American version has no political bias other than corporate interests. You could call it Lysenkoism with American values. e.g. tobacco, oil & gas, everything else.
    - SubiculumCode 4mo ago
      There is some small amount of fraud. Yes. Your issue is that you paint everything into one box or the other, dealing in absolutes is a convenient way to argue, even if its bullshit.
ksajasdasj 4mo ago
TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government. In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.
- jonnycomputer 4mo ago
  The Soviet Union is famous for telling scientists which scientific theories were acceptable to study. Science had to conform to the Party's ideology. This seems to be what you are advocating, and it seems you are mocking literal scientists for being upset by it. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
40four 4mo ago
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines. Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph: “ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ” Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment. Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense? We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”. The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable. We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
- SubiculumCode 4mo ago
  It is a factual title. There are no emotive words in the title. If it evokes emotions, it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing.
  - 40four 4mo ago
    It’s not a “factual” title. The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs. The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”. Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved? The submitted title is editorialized to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow. You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”. You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)
vasapin 4mo ago
Aside from the couple of daft suggestions outlined in the article, this doesn't seem so bad. A mountain being made of a molehill, perhaps?
- 40four 4mo ago
  Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says: “The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
  - SubiculumCode 4mo ago
    yes further down? Or did you stop there?
    - 40four 4mo ago
      I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently
- gmueckl 4mo ago
  What about the automatic scanning for politically inconvenient keywords then? How do you figure that this isn't bad?
- sega_sai 4mo ago
ChrisArchitect 4mo ago
Related: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511 What's Happening to Science in America https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687

43 points by SubiculumCode 4mo ago

sega_sai 4mo ago

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it."

noosphr 4mo ago
It wasn't the party that made the replication crisis. Right now universities have all the trappings of science with none of the substance. Do I particularly care than they are going to be bent to the ends of those in power? Kind of. The same way I'm a bit upset if someone pisses in the holy water at a church.
- DiogenesKynikos 4mo ago
  Universities have produced medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough. Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
  - noosphr 4mo ago
    Clinical trails have produced medical breakthroughs, peer review gave us leeches.
    - clipsy 4mo ago
      Clinical trials don’t happen until there’s a treatment to try.
      - noosphr 4mo ago
        Like leeches.
    - monkpit 4mo ago
      False dichotomy
    - DiogenesKynikos 4mo ago
      How do you think medical treatments make it to the stage of doing clinical trials? The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review. You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.
- nxobject 4mo ago
  [dead]
- eigenspace 4mo ago
  It also wasnt The Party who identified the replication crisis, and started the work of fixing it. Science is a self correcting mechanism, monarchism is not.
  - noosphr 4mo ago
    The crisis has been ongoing since the 80s and isn't slowing down. If the cure for it is to wait till the researchers die so new better ones take their place you just reinvented feudalism with tenure.
    - SubiculumCode 4mo ago
      Maybe because the crisis isn't a crisis. It's a 1) examining tough things with a lot of noise and low funding prevents adequate sampling
- applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
  You should care at least as much as if someone pisses in the cup you're drinking from, because regardless of the merit of the 'science' being produced in certain fields, the findings of bad studies are nonetheless breathlessly reported as objectively true Science, becoming "facts" that influence who your fellow less-discerning citizens vote for and influence how those voted in approach policy decisions. The state of scientific research is bad enough, but it can become much worse when actively applied to propagandistic ends (moreso than it already is).
  - noosphr 4mo ago
    Scientists have been pissing in all our cups for longer than I've been alive. That you're arguing what concentration of urea is acceptable is part of the problem. There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down. Universities are far past that point.
    - kristjansson 4mo ago
      yes yes the solution to some debatably valid social science research is to burn the entire epistemological method and practice to the ground. We'll surely find something better to replace it in its absence.
    - applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
      "Burn it down" is not on the menu. Your options are "bad science, used to mildly propagandistic ends, mostly in the form of lobbying public policy via bought-and-paid-for studies" or "bad science, used to extremely propagandistic ends directly by the state". Even if the option you would prefer is "good science" or "no bad science", you live in the real world and are currently being presented with a society making the choice between the actual options on the table rather than fantasy options.
      - DiogenesKynikos 4mo ago
        What we have right now is, "Mostly good science, which produces a constant stream of major advances, but which is subject to the same pressures and failure modes as any human endeavor, such as bias and financial interests with ulterior motives." If you want to improve that system, relying on people like RFK Jr. (a crackpot who rejects basically all of modern medical science, right down to the germ theory of disease) and Trump (the most corrupt president in US history) is crazy.
- platinumrad 4mo ago
  The Party certainly isn't going to solve the replication crisis. It's just going to pressure researchers to publish a different set of unreplicable results.

maxfraud9000 4mo ago

This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?

t0mpr1c3 4mo ago
Fraud Guarantee
SubiculumCode 4mo ago
Fox News much? They propagandize you to distrust the whole scientific endeavor using a few cases in order to strip from you any opinions that matter save their own, the propagandizer. This is propaganda 101. Remove those that truly help identify truth so that the truth is what they want it to be.
- maxfraud9000 4mo ago
  Ah yes another party member spreading "American Lysenkoism" by acting like it doesn't exist. Thanks for proving my point! Science is big business now and you must be on salary. Unlike actual Lysenkoism the American version has no political bias other than corporate interests. You could call it Lysenkoism with American values. e.g. tobacco, oil & gas, everything else.
  - SubiculumCode 4mo ago
    There is some small amount of fraud. Yes. Your issue is that you paint everything into one box or the other, dealing in absolutes is a convenient way to argue, even if its bullshit.

ksajasdasj 4mo ago

TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government. In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.

jonnycomputer 4mo ago
The Soviet Union is famous for telling scientists which scientific theories were acceptable to study. Science had to conform to the Party's ideology. This seems to be what you are advocating, and it seems you are mocking literal scientists for being upset by it. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

40four 4mo ago

To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines. Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph: “ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ” Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment. Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense? We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”. The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable. We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.

SubiculumCode 4mo ago
It is a factual title. There are no emotive words in the title. If it evokes emotions, it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing.
- 40four 4mo ago
  It’s not a “factual” title. The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs. The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”. Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved? The submitted title is editorialized to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow. You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”. You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)

vasapin 4mo ago

Aside from the couple of daft suggestions outlined in the article, this doesn't seem so bad. A mountain being made of a molehill, perhaps?

40four 4mo ago
Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says: “The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
- SubiculumCode 4mo ago
  yes further down? Or did you stop there?
  - 40four 4mo ago
    I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently
gmueckl 4mo ago
What about the automatic scanning for politically inconvenient keywords then? How do you figure that this isn't bad?
sega_sai 4mo ago

ChrisArchitect 4mo ago

Related: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511 What's Happening to Science in America https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687